Re: Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density

In article <45463d04$0$13806$822641b3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Nebenzahl  <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Why should I embrace a system that's cold and based on some abstract 
>notions, such as an aspect ratio based on the square root of two, where 
>the primary size (A0) from which the others are derived is defined, 
>arbitrarily, as having an area of one square meter? It's all neat and 
>consistent--and totally arbitrary, having nothing to do with real-world 
>historical pro****tions and dimensions.

Because in metric world the use of units is much more practical. I guess
that people in the US want to slow down daily life, because of some false
sense of tradition.

You don't have to know whether a measurement is supposed to be expressed
in
centimeters or in meters, because most people can easily divide or
multiply
by hundred. I wonder how many people in US can converted between inches,
feet, yards and miles without resorting to tables of calculators?

The same thing with the ISO paper series. You always know the name of the
size one bigger or smaller than the one you are currently using. 
If you layout for A3, you can just proof on A4. Or print two A4s on an
A3 and put a staple in the middle.

Fortunately, the US did decide to go metric for the electricity
(Volt, Ampere, Watt). 

And for some strange reason, focal lengths are metric, and are using the
strange square root of two series for aperture stops. 

Another strange thing is that money in the US is metric, whereas most
European countries had very long traditions with non-metric systems.


-- 
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
	-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency